Ive looked a dictionary definitions and cannot determine what a canyon (in the west) would be called in the eastern U.S. Is it still a canyon if it's east of the Mississippi River? Is it different from a hollow (pronounced holler) in the Appalachians? some other word?
Canyon vs Hollow: My understanding is that it's a matter of scale and shape. Both are elongated valleys (usually a result of river erosion), but hollows are relatively shallow with sloped sides and canyons are deep with much steeper if not vertical sides.
AFIK, there are very few canyons east of the Mississippi River. The geology of the western US is significantly different than the geology of the eastern US.
Although the words are often used interchangeably, gorges are a bit different. The sides of gorges are steeper than canyons and there is typically no embankment or shore.
Examples:
https://www.rental-center-crete.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/samaria-gorge-path.jpg
https://cdn.audleytravel.com/3066/2190/79/116094-tiger-leaping-gorge.jpg
Blah and blah as to why I retired to North Carolina, but I did.
My ancestors rode (walked) to Oregon 170 years ago and crossed deserts and canyons to get there.
I'm a geology 'geek' in that I want to know why certain land forms are where they are and why they are shaped as they are.
I've been here in NC for 9 years, traveled reasonably extensively to see the natural sites and I have to say that there are very few places with 'canyon' in their name here in the east.
My supposition is that the difference is the scope of the land feature. Most sharp sided valleys and gorges here are relatively small as compared to the west. A mile or two wide and a few miles long is typical. Yes, there are a few exceptions.
I think that's because the land has had many more millions of years to erode to its 'relatively' rounded form.
Out west the land is young, several hundred million years younger and therefore more dramatic in appearance, i.e. The Grand Tetons are an excellent example with their sharp edges piercing the sky.
People name stuff. Out west I suspect the first Europeans to see the land were in awe of the majesty.
Here in the east it was ho-hum, more of the same as in England and central Europe, mostly rolling hills. Yes, Europe has some jagged mountains, but there were none here when the first Euro colonists arrived.
So... generally what they did see and name was not impressive enough to warrant canyon. Again, there are a few from Maine south the Georgia and then into some of the areas of Missouri, Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, but they are small-ish.
Just my opinion
As you write, the mountains of the east are a couple million years older than those in the west. They've worn down in size.
I think a major difference is trees. In much of the the west the dominant colors are shades of brown with little vegetation. In the east the dominant color is green with abundant trees and bushes even on steep slopes. That softens the view of the landscape and makes the landscape less dramatic. If you stripped the river valleys of trees and bushes and let the dirt wash away you would have very dramatic' maybe ugly, vistas quickly.
I'm not sure I agree with you there. Certainly in the southwest those earthen tones predominate, but it's hard to imagine the Grand Canyon or Bryce being any less dramatic with more greenery. It's not the greenery that makes Hells Canyon less dramatic than the Grand Canyon (which isn't as deep), but the fact that the sides of the canyon aren't nearly vertical.
Where I'm at green is the predominate color, year round (hence the Evergreen State), but only to a point. Once you get high enough it's all rock and snow since the trees won't grow up there. One of my favorite walks (~3 miles round trip) is to Puget Sound, where on a clear day I can see three peaks higher than 10,000', well above the local tree line. The lower Cascade peaks are mostly treed to the top, but they're still pretty dramatic from sea level.
As mentioned, my ancestors came to the PNW in the early 1850s. They were common workers, farmers, loggers, mechanics and fishermen on the Columbia.
I've spent near 60% of my life years in the PNW. Climbed mountains, walked trails and drove roads.
I remember as a child going out with Dad to view logging activities and I have a clear memory of looking at the steepness of the clear cuts. I often wondered at how my uncles and cousins climbed up and down those rugged landscapes to cut and set the chokers on the high lines that yarded the logs to the deck.
Yet, just next to those clear cuts the trees had not been cut and the ruggedness was hidden.
But I also agree that the steepness of the visible canyon walls make a visual difference in how we humans perceive the scenery. Hide that steepness with some trees and shrubs and the perception goes from WOW to that's nice.
Yeah, I agree. I thought about this very thing - trees and bushes - after one of my nightly pee trips.
Wasn't gonna mess up the rest of the night by waking enough to post @ 3am. ;-)
As you write, the mountains of the east are a couple million years older than those in the west. They've worn down in size.
Oh, much more than a "couple of million", is actually over a billion years ago (roughly 1.2 gy). And at one time it was the highest mountain range on the planet and still holds the record for the tallest. However, the last building period of that range was around 260 mya, so they have been eroding for a long time.
And a lot of the difference between the two US coasts is the geology. The East Coast is largely "dead", geologically speaking. Where as the West Coast is still highly active, with ocean crust still subducting under the continent, various types of faults still changing the landscape, and a lot of volcanic features that are still highly active.
And one simple example, other than glacial rebound the East has been subsiding for millions of years. Meanwhile, the West is still quite often undergoing uplift and raising in altitude. Which means the canyons in most cases are still getting deeper. One thing most have backwards is that rivers themselves do not "cut canyons", it is the ground rising that forces the river to start to cut. If there is no crustal uplift, the river does not cut a canyon but instead meanders over time. The depth of canyons like the Grand and Hell's is not a sign of how much the river cut, but by how much the land rose since the river formed.
You think you'll find some mountains
In western colorado
Fifty weeks of snowy peaks
Is where you're gonna be
But babe the rocky mountains are gradually eroding
The hills of coors are nothing more
Than blue ridge wannabes"
"Old Dominion" - Eddie from Ohio
One thing most have backwards is that rivers themselves do not "cut canyons", it is the ground rising that forces the river to start to cut. If there is no crustal uplift, the river does not cut a canyon but instead meanders over time. The depth of canyons like the Grand and Hell's is not a sign of how much the river cut, but by how much the land rose since the river formed.
That's not entirely correct. There are a number of factors that can cause canyonrs to form: it can be what you describe, a river can encounter a fault in the rocks, or it can be from simple eroding of the rock. In the case of the Grand Canyon the uplift was prior to the formation of the canyon, at least according to NPS.
The story begins almost two billion years ago with the formation of the igneous and metamorphic rocks of the inner gorge. Above these old rocks lie layer upon layer of sedimentary rock, each telling a unique part of the environmental history of the Grand Canyon region.
Then, between 70 and 30 million years ago, through the action of plate tectonics, the whole region was uplifted, resulting in the high and relatively flat Colorado Plateau.
Finally, beginning just 5-6 million years ago, the Colorado River began to carve its way downward. Further erosion by tributary streams led to the canyon's widening.
Still today these forces of nature are at work slowly deepening and widening the Grand Canyon.
https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/grca-geology.htm#:~:text=Geologists%20call%20the%20process%20of,and%20boulders%20are%20carried%20too.
Same with National Geographic
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/canyons?loggedin=true&rnd=1717428604725
Canyon is derived from a Spanish word. Spanish derived words for terrain features are much more common west of the Mississippi River, from New Orleans to the Straits of Juan de Fuca.
Canyons, arroyos, mesas, pueblos, and other terms are most common in the southwest of the USA; also in Mexico.
Thank You!
I love this answer!
It clearly demonstrates how a society, Spain in the 1500 & 1600's, influenced place names and language.
Another factor on gorges and chasms in the east is that you are often looking up, not down.
Trails and later roads followed the rivers. Towns grew next to the rivers to take advantage of water power or a river that could be navigated.
Preconceptions
DBActive pointed out my lack of understanding about European languages in the 1500's and 1600's.
I thought that there was a significant cross pollination from Spanish to French to Italian to English to German and et cetera.
Not the entire language, but individual words and their concepts made it across the language barriers. I was mistaken with the idea that the concept of canyon was ubiquitous even if the individual languages spelled the concept differently.
Now, I cannot help but wonder how many other perceptions are wrong and how much conflict, both individual and national, is because of wrong understandings?
Thanks DBA for helping me to think in a new direction.
English has been influenced by words from other European languages, such as French, German, Italian/Latin, Spanish.
It is still collecting words from other countries.
Obviously that is not a one-way street, other languages pick up words from - for example - English. The French tried to fight this for a while, they have some institute which is supposed to define what the French language is. At one point they decreed that "computer" had to be "ordinateur" (sp?) in French, but that is at least 20 years ago and maybe they have accepted defeat on that one.
German routinely assimilates English words into its language, often when there are perfectly good words already there.
DBactive said what I was going to say - Gorge. There are a number of gorges in the Northeast. They are basically the same as canyons.
An interesting example of the opposite of language mixing is the Icelandic language. Until the 1940s, they were almost totally isolated from interactions with other countries other than Denmark. There was some outmigration but almost zero in migration. They have many epic stories they call Sagas, which were written in the 12th and 13th century, any literate speaker of Icelandic language can pick one of them up and read it with little or no problems. Try picking up a 13th century English document and read it
